The weeks of soul-searching that are bound to follow were well underway on Wednesday.Most readers think you have no soul.
The Times is subsidized by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim who took a $6 billion hit in his net worth in the post-election drop in the peso's value. Elections have consequences -- especially when you carry so much water for the Democrats that you could turn Death Valley into the Great Lakes.
The losses he will eat in 2017 will be even bigger than the ones he is eating this year.
But the Times has no plans to change. Executive Editor Dean Baquet wrote to the staff: “Whenever the news media gets surprised by a big story, there follows a round of questioning. What could we have done better? How did we and other news organizations underestimate the support for such an unusual, even divisive candidate?”
The Times was surprised by a big story, see? That's all. No discussion of its bias or its seething, foaming mouth hatred for the next president of the United States.
Rutenberg "interviewed" Baquet, whom he quoted as saying, “If I have a mea culpa for journalists and journalism, it’s that we’ve got to do a much better job of being on the road, out in the country, talking to different kinds of people than the people we talk to — especially if you happen to be a New York-based news organization — and remind ourselves that New York is not the real world.”
No admission of guilt.
Ben Rhodes, an Obama official who bragged about fooling the public on the Iran deal, has a brother named David who is president of CBS News. He told Rutenberg: “You can’t say that this campaign was undercovered or that this result is because of some failure to report on these candidates. I think it’s presumptuous of anybody — media or anybody else — to suggest that the reason for the result is some information failure.”
No one is saying that.
The problem is all the pro-Democratic Party bias in the reporting. It's not the upholstery of the davenport that is the problem. It is that huge elephant in the room we should be discussing.
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post had a suggestion for Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the titular head of the newspaper that Slim subsidizes. From Michael Goodwin:
Having grown up at The Times, I am pained by its decline. More troubling, as the flagship of American journalism, it is giving all reporters a black eye. Its standards were the source of its credibility, and eliminating them has made it less than ordinary.
It is because of those concerns that I repeat a suggestion about how to fix the mess. Because he now concedes a problem, perhaps Sulzberger will consider taking action.
Using an outside law firm or even in-house reporters, he must assess how and why Baquet made the decision to sever the paper from its roots. He must assess the impact on reporters and editors, and whether they felt pressure to conform their stories to Baquet’s political bias.
Whatever the findings, the publisher must insist that the standards of fairness again become a fundamental tenet in the news room. As an added guarantee, he must insist that the paper enlarge its thinking about diversity to include journalists who disagree with the Times embedded liberal slant. There has to be a difference of perspective to judge where fairness lies.Goodwin does not understand. These people don't care about the future. They live in the here and now, and care only about power. Baquet could not care less if the Times becomes a parking lot when he is gone.
Objectivity is for losers.
They view their only failure as not electing Hillary.
Readers be damned. Advertisers be damned. The truth be damned.
"Trump the Press" skewers media experts who wrongly predicted Trump would lose the Republican nomination. I use my deadliest weapon: their own words. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.
The sequel is coming.